Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 115–122 | Cite as

The Relationship between Egalitarianism, Dominance, and Violence in Intimate Relationships

  • Gunnur Karakurt
  • Tamra Cumbie
Original Article


The aim of this study was to understand the relationship between egalitarianism, dominance, and intimate partner violence within the context of couples’ dynamics. 87 heterosexual dyads completed questionnaires on gender role egalitarianism, dominance/control, sexism, power dynamics, and aggression. The relationship between female and male scores on the dominance, egalitarianism, sexism, and intimate partner violence scales were examined using Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM). Findings indicated that the APIM model provided a satisfactory fit to the data. For both sexes, dominance had more explanatory power than sexism and egalitarianism when all else was controlled in the model. Contrary to our expectation, male egalitarian attitude had no significant actor or partner effect on relationship aggression, while female egalitarian attitude had significant actor and partner effects on relationship aggression. Dyadic analysis indicated that cultural pointers of patriarchy, such as egalitarianism among young college students, were not associated with male-to-female violence.


Intimate partner violence Dominance Egalitarianism Dyadic data analysis Actor partner interdependence model 


  1. Archer, J. (1999). Assessment of the reliability of the conflict tactics scales: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1263–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, J. (2000). Sex difference in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babcock, J. C., Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., & Yerington, T. P. (2000). Attachment, emotional regulation, and the function of marital violence: Differences between secure, preoccupied, and dismissing violent and nonviolent husbands. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 391-409.Google Scholar
  4. Beere, C. A., King, D. W., Beere, D. B., & King, L. A. (1984). The Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale: A measure of attitudes toward equality between the sexes. Sex Roles, 10, 563–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capaldi, D., Shortt, J., & Crosby, L. (2003). Physical and psychological aggression in at-risk young couples: Stability and change in young adulthood. Merill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capaldi, D., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 101–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., & Vivian, D. (1992). Marital aggression, impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 1178–1184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cate, C. A., Henton, J. M., Koval, J., Christopher, F. S., & Lloyd, S. (1982). Premarital abuse: A social psychological perspective. Journal of Family Issues, 3, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choi, S. Y. P., & Ting, K. (2008). Wife beating in South Africa: An imbalance theory of resources and power. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 834–852.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crossman, R. K., Stith, S. M., & Bender, M. M. (1990). Sex role egalitarianism and marital violence. Sex Roles, 22, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dutton, D. G., & Nicholls, T. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 680–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dutton, M. A., Green, B. L., Kaltman, S. I., Roesch, D. M., Zeffiro, T. A., & Krause, E. D. (2006). Intimate partner violence, PTSD and adverse health outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 955–968.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehrensaft, M. K., & Vivian, D. (1999). Is partner aggression related to appraisals of coercive control by a partner? Journal of Family Violence, 14, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferraro, K. J., & Moe, A. M. (2003). Mothering, crime and incarceration. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32, 9–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher, L. A., Kokes, R. F., Ranson, D. C., Phillips, S. L., & Rudd, P. A. (1985). Alternative strategies for creating “relational” family data. Family Process, 24, 213–224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fonagy, P. (1999). Male perpetrators of violence against women: An attachment theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 1, 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox, G. L., Benson, M. L., DeMaris, A., & Van Wyk, J. (2002). Economic distress and intimate violence: Testing family stress and resources theories. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 793–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodman, L. A., Koss, M. P., Fitzgerald, L., Felipe-Russo, N., & Keita, G. (1993). American Psychologist, 48, 1054–1058.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gryl, F., Stith, S., & Bird, G. (1991). Close dating relationships among college students: Differences by use of violence and by gender. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 243–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamby, S. L. (1996). The Dominance Scale: Preliminary psychometric properties. Violence and Victims, 11, 199–212.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaffe, P. G., & Suderman, M. (1995). Child witnesses of woman abuse: Research and community responses. In S. M. Stith & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Understanding partner violence (pp. 213–222). Minneapolis, MN: National Council on Family Relations.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Katz, J., & Arias, I. (1999). Psychological abuse and depressive symptoms in dating women: Do differential types of abuse have differential effects? Journal of family Violence, 14, 281–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kenny, D., Kashy, D., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kruttschnitt, C. (1995). Violence by and against women: A comparative and cross-national analysis. In R. B. Ruback & N. A. Weiner (Eds.), Interpersonal violent behaviors. Social and cultural aspects (pp. 89–108). New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  29. Lawson, D. M. (2008). Attachment, interpersonal problems, and family of origin functioning: Differences between partner violent and non-partner violent men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 9, 90–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lemon, S. C., Verhoek-Oftedahl, W., & Donnelly, E. F. (2002). Preventive healthcare use, smoking, and alcohol use among Rhode Island women experiencing intimate partner violence. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 11(6), 555–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marshall, L. L. (1999). Effects of men’s subtle and overt psychological abuse on low income women. Violence and Victims, 14, 69–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Nabors, E. L., Dietz, T. L., & Jasinski, J. L. (2006). Domestic violence beliefs and perceptions among college students. Violence and Victims, 21, 779–794.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Próspero, M., & Vohra-Gupta, S. (2007). Gender differences in the relationship between intimate partner violence victimization and the perception of dating situations among college students. Violence and Victims, 22(4), 489–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sagrestano, L. M., Heavey, C. L., & Christensen, A. (1999). Perceived power and physical violence in marital conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 55(1), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, M. D. (1990). Patriarchal ideology and wife beating: A test of a feminist hypothesis. Violence and Victims, 5, 257–273.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Stets, J. E. (1990). Verbal and psychological aggression in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.Google Scholar
  38. Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). The marriage licence as a hitting licence: A comparison of assaults in dating, cohabiting and married couples. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American violence (pp. 227–244). New Brunswick. NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  39. Stets, J., & Straus, M. (1992). The marriage license as a hitting license. Physical violence in American families (pp. 227–244). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intra family conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Straus, M. A. (1995). Manual for the Conflict Tactic Scales. Durham: University of New Hampshire, Family Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  42. Straus, S. M. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTSZ). Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sugg, N., & Inui, T. (1992). Primary care physician’s response to domestic violence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267, 3157–3160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tolman, R. M. (1999). The validation of the psychological maltreatment of women inventory. Violence and Victims, 14, 25–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Waltz, J., Babcock, J. C., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (2000). Testing a typology of batterers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 658–669.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In D. R. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 84–136). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  48. Yllo, K., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Patriarchy and violence against wives: The impact of structural and normative factors. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors for adaptations to violence in 8 145 families (pp. 383–399). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  49. Yount, K. M. (2005). Resources, family organization, and domestic violence against married women in Minya, Egypt. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 579–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Family Medicine and Community HealthCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Applied & Professional StudiesTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations